This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Daniel Lytle Dolan (born May 28, 1951) is an American
self-professed traditional Catholic bishop, who was initially made a priest
while belonging to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) under Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre in the 1970s. Bishop Daniel Dolan promotes his heretical group through
the websites www.sgg.org and www.traditionalmass.org. Dolan was
born in Detroit, Michigan to a family of Irish ancestry and began preparing for
the priesthood at 14 years of age, dedicating his entire life to the faith.
Since 1973, he had believed that the Second Vatican Council was heretical and
Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) and his successors not true Popes (a position known
as sedevacantism). Later, as the SSPX was making gestures to the Vatican II
sect, in 1983 nine American priests split from the Society of St. Pius X (who
is officially a non sedevacantist society) as to form the Society of St. Pius V
(SSPV), including Dolan (the SSPV does not impose sedevacantism as a morally
binding teaching).

In early 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre directed the SSPX's
American priests to follow Angelo Roncalli's (John XXIII's) liturgical books of
1962. Lefebvre insisted that priests publicly affirm their allegiance to
"Pope" John Paul II, which the sedevacantists among them, including
nine American priests, including Dolan, refused. They were promptly expelled
from the SSPX. These priests formed the Society of St. Pius V.

By 1989, Dolan began to move closer to the sedevacantist
Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) and after discussions, it was
revealed that they agreed on doctrinal issues. Dolan was consecrated a Bishop
on November 30, 1993 by Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI, whose line goes back
to Ngo Dinh Thuc, so-called Archbishop of Huế in Vietnam. Throughout his
religious life, Dolan has typically been based in Ohio and today serves the St.
Gertrude the Great Church in Cincinnati, as well as visiting other communities
in the United States, Mexico and Europe. Sermons and discussions of Bishop
Dolan have featured on Restoration Radio.

Most Holy Family Monastery on Bishop Dolan's Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed

Hello, my name is Bro. Peter
Dimond. You’re probably familiar with our website and some of the materials we
have produced. We were glad to hear that some time back you changed your view
on the Conciliar Church and now publicly support the sedevacantist position.

I’m writing to you because I’ve
noticed that you publicly support and endorse independent bishops such as
Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI, Bishop Dolan (who is affiliated with Fr. Cekada
and Bishop Sanborn) and Bishop McKenna. Are you not aware that all of these
bishops – as well as the priests with whom they are affiliated – hold that
non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith and without belief in the
Trinity and Incarnation? That’s simply a fact, Dr. Droleskey. They all hold
that “baptism of desire” not only applies to unbaptized catechumens (which in
itself is wrong, as we have proven), but that it can apply to members of false
religions who don’t even believe in Jesus Christ. Below is a radio program we
did recently in which we quote extensively from a sermon given by Bishop Daniel
Dolan. You really should listen to it. In it you will hear that Bishop Dolan
not only attacks the necessity of baptism and the Catholic Faith for salvation,
but heretically states that we don’t know and don’t judge whether those
who die as non-Catholics are saved. This is, of course, contrary to the
defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Bishop Dolan is thus a
public heretic against the Church’s infallible teaching on salvation, and he
attacks those who adhere to it with a tenacity that can only be described as
diabolical. Please also consult the heretical quotes I’ve appended to this
e-mail from Bishop Sanborn and from Bishop Robert McKenna in the CMRI’s
official magazine.

July 3, 2007 Radio Program [1 hr. and 4 min. – discusses at length and quotes from an
extremely revealing sermon by Bishop Dolan on baptism, salvation, Fr. Feeney
and “Feeneyites.” Hear his own heretical words. Hear a true heretic in action.
This is a must-listen if you are familiar with this bishop. This program
also discusses other things.]

What I’m saying to you in
charity, Dr. Droleskey, is that even though you think you have found some
comfort and structure with these sedevacantist priests and bishops, the fact is
they are not truly Catholic. They are, sad to say, rejecters of the
Church’s infallible teaching at the Council of Florence (Denz. 714) that
all who die as pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics go to Hell. This dogma
is actually rejected by almost all “traditionalist” priests today. You cannot
preserve the Catholic Faith or save your soul while promoting and affiliating
yourself with such heretics. Those who obstinately promote or affiliate
themselves with such heretics will lose their souls. These heretics not only
deny the Church’s teaching on salvation, but publicly attack those who defend
it. Since you are publicly presenting yourself as a teacher of the traditional
Catholic Faith, you have an especially strict obligation to defend the
truths of the Catholic Faith. On Judgment Day, none of these individuals will
be there to defend you. You will questioned by Jesus Christ whether you stood
for the fullness of His truth and – in case you weren’t aware until now – I’m
making you aware of the heresies promoted by these groups.

I must say – even though I hope
I’m wrong – that I’m afraid you might dismiss this e-mail [he did dismiss the
email]. I fear that since you have come to the sedevacantist position (and
finally started to tell some of the truth about what is really happening in
Rome) you feel quite confident about what you’re doing and some of the people
you have surrounded yourself with. But I remind you: just as when you were a
full-fledged supporter of the Vatican II Church, and admitted to lying about
some of John Paul II’s activity in order to please people, but were too blinded
to see the mortal sin in which you thus involved yourself, if your reaction is
to confidently reject these points, then you are demonstrating a similar level
of blindness. In the past, you probably thought that you were safe on the
side of truth, and in good hands on the side of God, while you were
among the defenders of the Conciliar Church. I think that you now admit that
you were gravely mistaken. If your reaction to these points is to reject them,
I say that you are once again gravely mistaken and that God’s demand that you,
I and everyone else stand purely for His truth is much graver than you
realize.

The question you have to ask
yourself is not: how many of your friends agree with the points above?
The question is not: were I to take such a stand, how unpopular might I
become with those who now admire me or like what I’m doing? The question is:
are these points above, which expose the heretical teaching of the
aforementioned bishops, true? The answer is yes. They are irrefutable.
Thus, a person’s responsibility in light of these facts, if he wants to maintain
the Catholic Faith and save his soul, is clear. He cannot affiliate himself
with or promote these heretical priests and bishops, or else he will be
committing a mortal sin and will be denying the Catholic Faith.

I’ve written this to you in
charity because I care about your soul and I like some of what you have said.
However, the choice whether a person will, with a pure intention, stand
uncompromisingly for Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith is a choice that each
one has to make. It’s a choice between serving God or serving men. It’s a
choice between Heaven and Hell. It’s a choice between God and the Devil.

Hopefully these points will ring
true with you and you will see that they are grounded in truth. We would be
interested in any reply that you might have to this e-mail (Appendix is below).

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond

APPENDIX

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium
V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it
identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body
of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as
pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some
mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are
united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of
their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of
their error.”

Bishop Robert McKenna, “The
Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol.
XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to
be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church…
But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the
word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’? For
the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know
of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so
much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but
a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but
rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those
outside the one ark of salvation.”

Bishop McKenna also wrote to us
that it’s not heretical to hold that Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be saved.

Bishop Robert McKenna, to Bro.
Peter Dimond, Nov. 25, 2004: “2. I answer your ‘one simple question’
regarding Fr. Denis Fahey’s saying, ‘The Jews, as a nation, are objectively
aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the
order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who
rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in
every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively,
the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that
life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the
way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are
engaged.’

“Fr. Fahey in these words is
in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you
ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: “The Jews, as
a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which
is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively)
a member of the Jewish Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our
Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to
see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God
wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world
is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If
a Jew who rejects our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and
therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the
movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.’ I could not
agree more with what Fr. Fahey says…”

There
you have it. Fr. Fahey taught that a Jew who rejects Our Lord can be in the
state of grace (and therefore be saved). Bishop McKenna acknowledges this and
fully agrees with it and states explicitly that “Fr. Fahey in these
words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire.” This is as heretical as it
gets.

All the priests (and a nun) of
CMRI with whom I have spoken have indicated non-Catholics, including Jews who
reject Christ, can be saved. This is what they believe.

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC
SECTS

The Catholic Church has always
taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize
if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing
what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity,
however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a
pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church
and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that
infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who
baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because
the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic.
He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a
member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If
anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after
having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him
be anathema.”

This means that all baptized
infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic
churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They
are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one
point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his
membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the
baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a
schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the
Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching
of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity
and Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first
place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you,
believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith,
and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are
schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith
of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the
Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the
faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can
finally be saved.”

So, one must be clear on these
points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join
the Catholic Church by receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they
will all be lost. 2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants,
they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman
Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already
possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe
something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.
In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly
taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and
become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately
separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants
who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy,
etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have
therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true
with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and
Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for
salvation.

The baptized children who reach
the age of reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc.
church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential
components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma
because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and
who don’t embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic faith, Faith in
God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see The Natural Law) or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.

Council
of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and
goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that
penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his
sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come
forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led
astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received
without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This means that the children above
reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents
were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew
to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages
who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church
teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has
always taught (as we have seen) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately
reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone,
retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously [or obstinately] denies or
doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic
faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

Please consult the following
sections to learn what things one can and cannot be ignorant about when it
comes to the Catholic faith, its teachings and dogmas – and concerning whether
such a person is to be considered a Catholic, an unbeliever or a heretic:

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The following statements on
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are from the highest teaching
authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees
(decrees from the Chair of St. Peter). Therefore, they constitute the teaching given
to the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such teachings are
unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium (the
extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra (infallible statement from the chair of Peter): “The Holy
Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the
Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical
body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s
sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of
piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody
can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has
shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.”

As we can see from this infallible
statement from the chair of Peter, no one at all can be saved unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.. Yet, many people
today who call themselves Catholic or Christian, boldly and obstinately assert
the direct opposite of this statement and claim that protestants, heretics,
Jews, schismatics and even Pagans can attain eternal life.

Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some
of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men
are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may
attain eternal life.”

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, The Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22,
1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above
all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and
inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553; Denzinger 39-40.)

Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex
cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both
priest and sacrifice.”

Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy,
Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Churchoutside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that
they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

Those who refuse to believe in the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation until they understand how
there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in Christ’s
revelation. Those with the true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His
teaching first and understand the truth in it (i.e., why it is
true) second.A Catholic does not withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation
until he can understand it.That is the mentality of a faithless heretic who
possesses insufferable pride. St. Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on
this point.

St.
Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not
seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.
For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”

THE OBJECTIVE-SUBJECTIVE HERESY

OBJECTION- Objectively speaking, there is absolutely no salvation
outside the Catholic Church. But subjectively speaking, we just don’t
know.

ANSWER- This is similar to
the “You Can’t Judge” heresy. Those who advance this heresy (such as Fr. Fahey
and Bishop McKenna did above) deny dogmatic truth; for the Objective-Subjective
Heresy means that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is only true
“objectively,” which necessarily means that non-Catholics can be saved
“subjectively,” which means that the end result is a denial of the defined
dogma.

The Objective-Subjective Heresy is
just a clever way of saying that the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation might not mean what it says. It’s diabolical double-talk. It is
equivalent to asserting:

“Jesus
Christ is objectively the Son of God.”

Could a Catholic hold that? No, he
could not, because Jesus Christ is not just objectively the Son of God;
He is the Son of God – period! But this is exactly what those who hold the
Objective-Subjective heresy are saying! For to say that one dogma (Outside the
Church There is No Salvation) is only true objectively is to say that
any other dogma (e.g., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is only true
objectively. There is no way around this. The Objective-Subjective Heresy asserts
the heresy that dogmas are not really divinely revealed truths, but only
presumptions or policies that we go by, and this is condemned Modernism.

Pope
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The
dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven,
but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human
mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned statement

Pope
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #26: “The
dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that
is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”-
Condemned statement

The idea that we can preach that
there is no salvation outside the Church while we believe in our hearts
that there is salvation outside the Church or may be salvation outside
the Church is heretical. That only Catholics can be saved is a truth revealed
from heaven which every Catholic must believe first, and
profess second.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also
Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into
the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless
they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”

Since dogmas are truths fallen
from heaven, to say that any dogma (e.g., the dogma that all who die as
non-Catholics are lost) may have a “subjective” reality that is different
from the revealed truth is heresy – it is a denial of that truth.
Therefore, the idea that subjectively non-Catholics can be saved is
blatant heresy; it is a denial of the revealed truth that all who die as
non-Catholics are necessarily lost.

The same Objective-Subjective
heresy is taught in the book The Devil’s Final Battle, which is promoted
by a number of “traditionalist” organizations.

sgg.org

The following statement of beliefs is taken from the sgg.org
website:

Beliefs

In the 1960s, as a direct result of the Second Vatican
Council, the Catholic Mass was changed beyond recognition. Latin, reverence,
and large chunks of Catholic doctrine went out the window. Disaster followed.
Mass attendance plummeted, belief eroded, vocations dried up.

At St. Gertrude the Great, we remain faithful to the “old
ways”—the Church’s doctrine and worship, tried and true, unchanged and
unchangeable. We treat the Mass and Christ’s Body and Blood for what they
are―the holiest thing this side of heaven. We preach only eternal
truths of the Catholic faith—no feel-good stuff, no fuzziness, no ecumenical
sell-outs [sad to say, but they must be considered by us as heretics
totally devoid of the faith since they embrace heresies condemned by the
Catholic Church, as we could see above].

At St. Gertrude the Great, you’ll see Mass celebrated in the
ancient and venerable Latin rite, whose central prayers have been exactly the
same since the days when our forebears in the faith emerged from the catacombs.
As a Catholic you have a right to sound doctrine and pure worship—a
right that no one, not even a bishop or a pope, can take away [exactly,
so don’t let these heretical bishops deceive you with their heresies!].

If you want to worship and believe as Catholics have always
worshipped and believed, join us at St. Gertrude the Great.

Against Heretics and Praying in Communion with Heretics

Catholics are explicitly
forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with heretics (heretics such as Bishop
Dolan and St. Gertrude the Great Church mentioned above) or receive the
sacraments from them as Pope Leo X and the following dogmatic Councils makes
clear. These quotations, of course, also condemn the Vatican II sect’s false
ecumenism, as well as their false prayer meetings or gatherings with the false
religions of the world.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran
Council, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot
contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened
truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise
to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous
statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly
condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as
detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic
faith.

“… All
false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith,
of whatever race or nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained
with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the
company of Christ’s faithful and expelled from any position, especially
from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty…”

The Pope just said infallibly that all
heretics should be avoided in every way. Note that you can only know
that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of
the person in question. Thus, if you know your
priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way,
and may not approach him for the sacraments. This same authoritative language
can be seen in Pope Vigilius ex cathedra decree from the Second Council of
Constantinople.

Pope
Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The
heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in
reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of
truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he
writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or
twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is
perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical
parents, even though I’ve tried to convert them?

Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite
yourself with heretics purposely (outside of what the Church approves of), or
be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them. That’s what’s
condemned here. The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live
with a heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the
Church has approved of it), who buys food or do business with heretics,
or who work under a heretic or take orders from him, etc.

Moving on:

III
Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall
go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join
in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion[excommunicated].
If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him
be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

The Third Council of Constantinople
just defined infallibly that any person who prays in communion with heretics
are to be excommunicated and refused communion for praying with other heretics.
Now let’s look at some other quotes:

Council
of Laodicea, 4th century, Canon 6: “No one shall pray in common with
heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the
house of God while they continue in heresy.”

Council
of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and
whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the
Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope
Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That
Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the
direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is
radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy, is absolutely impossible to
tolerate!”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of
heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated
or blessed.”

1917
Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to
assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of
non-Catholics.”

Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it
is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only
be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of
those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left
it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and
which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He
instituted it.”

Pope
Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all
intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not
hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

For people then to claim (in spite
of all the quotations above saying otherwise) that one may pray at heretical
churches or receive the sacraments from them or that an assembly presided over
by heretics or an assembly that prays in communion with other heretics, to
somehow be the Church of God or the Church of Catholics, is simply to deny
God’s revealed infallible truth.

It is also of divine law and not
only a disciplinary law that Catholics can only be in communion with other
Catholics and that they may never worship with people who are heretics,
schismatics, or infidels. To knowingly enter into a religious house that is
heretical or schismatical is of course to profess religious unity outwardly in
a way that is completely unacceptable. The scandal this provokes in the eyes of
true Catholics is easy to understand. For every person that sees you entering a
“church” where the priest is a heretic or schismatic, will assume that you
agree with his heresy or schism. The unity of faith that must exist between
people who call themselves Catholic and who worship God is one constant that
can never be changed according to Catholic teaching. This is called divine law.
Without the unity of faith, there is only darkness and eternal fire, as Pope
Leo XIII and the following quotes makes clear:

Pope
Leo XIII, SatisCognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason,
as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the
Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so
also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted
society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of
communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Pope
Pius XII, MysticiCorporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in
the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord,
and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man
refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a
heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in
faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor
can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

Pope
St. Clement I, 1st Century: "If any man shall be friendly to those
with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those
who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be
with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more
dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes."

III
Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If
any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the
meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed
and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in
prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

Pope
Pius IX, EtsiMulta, #26, Nov. 21, 1873: "Therefore, by
the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph
Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in
his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has
adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor,
aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated
from the communion of the Church.They are to be considered among those
with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle [2 John10-11] to associate and have social exchangeto such an extent
that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted."

The above quote is very relevant
to our situation today in that many priests and adherents of those priests
would fall under this very same condemnation.
First let’s learn a little history about the above condemnation of Joseph
Humbert and all his adherents: "A surprisingly large number of German
priests and laymen rejected the First Vatican Council’s solemn teaching on
the papacy. In September 1870, nearly 1,400 Germans who called themselves
'Old Catholics' signed a declaration that renounced the conciliar teaching. In
September 1871, 300 delegates met in Munich to organize a new church. Unable
to find a Catholic bishop who would renounce Catholic dogma and join them,
the Old Catholics turned to the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Devetner in the
Netherlands of the schismatic Little Church of Utrecht. He ordained Father
Joseph Humbert Reinkens a bishop in August 1873."

Pope
Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the
new hereticswho call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these
schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of
darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This
sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly
rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and
devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and
declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who
belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics
and separated from communion with the Church."

Here, Pope Pius IX gives an
explicit confirmation that people must consider heretics or
schismatics to be outside the Church and that there is no need for a further
declaration to decide this. But who can deny the fact that Vatican II also is a
“new church”, and that all the validly ordained bishops and priests left
in this “new church” also would fall under the same condemnation as Joseph
Humbert? Therefore, without a doubt, you may not approach any of the
validly ordained Novus Ordo priests for the sacraments of Confession or
the Eucharist at all, as the heretics and schismatics teach.

Another striking fact is that
almost all of the validly ordained priests left in the entire world (both traditional
“Catholic” priests and Novus Ordo priests alike), also reject Vatican I
and papal infallibility, by obstinately denying infallible Catholic dogma. The
old “Catholics” was excommunicated for this very reason, and one were not even
allowed to greet them, and anyone who would adhere to them (for example,
receive the sacraments from them) was to be excommunicated just like them.

“We
have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those
unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be
considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."
(Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875)

Therefore, without a doubt, neither
may you approach any of the validly ordained traditional “Catholic” priests
left in the world for the sacraments, if they obstinately deny or reject even a
single Catholic dogma or hold to even a single heresy, as Pope Leo XIII makes
clear:

Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in
all can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For
there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work
of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

traditionalmass.org

The following information concerning the Vatican II sect
was taken from the traditionalmass.org website:

What's Wrong with the New Mass?

from
"Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn.

Among other things, the liturgical changes of Vatican II
reflect the doctrinal errors of the Council concerning: (1) the unity of the
Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty and (4) collegiality. (See What's
wrong with Vatican II? FAQs)

The new liturgy is an ecumenical liturgy, and seeks to
erase any doctrines which are distinctly Catholic, and to turn the Catholic
liturgy into a form of worship which would not be offensive to any Protestant.
It is man-centered worship, stripped of all symbolism of the supernatural.

The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is an evil liturgical
discipline, because:

1.it contains a heretical definition of the Mass;

2.it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecumenical
liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the
priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in
the Holy Eucharist;

3.it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers,
which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated;

4.its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons
doctrines which would be offensive to heretics;

5.it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures,
heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Furthermore, it is most probably invalid owing to a defect
of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in
the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration of the words of Christ in the
consecration formula.

The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been
already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to
the Church's teaching and constant practice.

2. What doctrines did it teach which were already
condemned?

There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of
the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.

3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning
the unity of the Church?

Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the
Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the
Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical
doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical
meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly
in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning
Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church,
contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium
Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in
the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office
under Pope Pius IX.

4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning
ecumenism?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which
states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is
overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the
Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope
Pius IX "a most well-know Catholic dogma." [yet they deny this very
dogma on salvation themselves!] In addition, the ecumenical practices which
have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium
Animos of Pope Pius XI.

5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning
religious liberty?

The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained
in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine
which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope
Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura,
and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of
Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in
society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant
attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.

6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning
collegiality?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters
the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed
by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of
Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme
authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is
contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.

7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have
emanated from Vatican II?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican
II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the
Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a
mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship)
with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical
Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been
taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.

8. What does all this mean?

It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have
given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the
Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.

The reformers have substantially altered the three main
components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that
the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place
of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the
one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II
religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past.
It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.

As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their
local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic
religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.

9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation
to Vatican II?

No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

1.the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his
successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;

2.the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First
Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false
worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;

3.the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic
Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;

4.the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of
them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or
invalidity;

5.the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law
and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy
Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies
concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;

7.the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has
openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has
recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of
which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which
explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed
that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.

3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic
Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical
practices, and false disciplines?

Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope
is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in
the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that
it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these
sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to
the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact
that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they do
not have the authority of Christ. The teachings of Vatican II and the reforms
which proceed from it are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal
salvation. But since the Church is both indefectible and infallible, it cannot
give to the faithful doctrines, laws, liturgy, and disciplines which are
contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. We must therefore
conclude that this Council and these reforms do not proceed from the Church,
that is, the Holy Ghost, but from an evil influence within the Church. From
this it follows that those who have promulgated this evil Council and these
evil reforms have not promulgated them with the authority of the Church, which
is the authority of Christ. From this we rightfully conclude that their claim
to have this authority is false, despite whatever appearance they may have,
even despite an apparently valid election to the papacy [read more: The
Great Apostasy and a counterfeit Church predicted in the New Testament and in
Catholic Prophecy].

4. Do we have the authority to say that these
Vatican II popes are not true popes?

We do not have the authority to legally declare it [to the
contrary: The
Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a
heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope]. But on the other hand, as
Catholics, we have the obligation of comparing what is taught by Vatican II
with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The virtue of faith demands that we
do so, since the faith is supernatural wisdom and consequently demands that
everything be in conformity with it. If we did not make this comparison, we
would not have the virtue of faith. If we find that the teachings of Vatican II
are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Faith, we are bound to
reject Vatican II, and bound to conclude that those who promulgate it do not have
the authority of Christ. Otherwise our adherence to the error which is contrary
to faith would ruin the virtue in us, and we would become heretics. Similarly,
if we would entertain the thought that the Catholic Church were capable of
promulgating false doctrines and evil worship and discipline, we would be
heretics. So privately to conclude that John Paul II is a heretic, indeed an
apostate from the Faith, is not to "judge" the pope [since he would
not be the pope] in the sense that it is meant by canonists and theologians. In
fact, if we could not even think of the possibility of the pope being a
heretic, then why do so many theologians speak about this possibility, and
about the consequences of his being a heretic [and losing his office]?

5. But why can't we "sift" what the pope
does and says, and accept what is Catholic, and reject what is non-Catholic?

Because if John Paul II is the pope, we must obey him.
Even to admit the possibility that he can promulgate false doctrines and enact
universal disciplines which are evil is itself a heresy against the teaching
that the Catholic Church is infallible in these matters. It is inconceivable
that, in following the universal teachings of the Church or her universal
disciplines, you could be led astray and go to Hell. If this were possible, one
would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church,
but a human institution like any other false church. Furthermore, to sift the
teachings of the Church is to set yourself up as the pope, for your adherence
to these teachings would not be based on the authority of the Church, but
rather your own "sifting" of these teachings.

6. But if your father tells you to do something
wrong, you must disobey him. But he still remains your father.

First of all, being someone's natural father can never
change because it is based on physical generation. But being someone's
spiritual father can change because it is based on a spiritual generation.
Hence a pope could resign and no longer be the spiritual father of Catholics.
So the analogy does not apply.

But more importantly, this argument which is frequently
used by the Society of Saint Pius X and others, does not hold water for another
reason. If a pope gave to a particular person a particular command which was
evil (e.g., to desecrate a crucifix), the argument would apply. For in such a
case the pope would not be engaging the whole practice of the Church, and
therefore would not involve the indefectibility of the Church. But if he were
to make a general law that all Catholics ought to desecrate crucifixes, then
the very indefectibility of the Church is at stake. For how could the Church of
Christ make such a law? Would it then not be leading all souls to Hell? The
fact that John Paul II has made general laws which prescribe or even permit
evil is a violation of the Church's indefectibility.

Hence the Society's argument cannot be applied to the
present crisis in the Church.…

8. Isn't the question of John Paul's papacy a mere
matter of opinion?

Absolutely not. Our eternal salvation depends upon our
submission to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the question of John Paul's papacy
is of supreme importance, and we must resolve our consciences about it one way
or the other. If we conclude that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the
Church, then we must reject John Paul II as a true pope.

If we conclude that Vatican II is not a substantial
alteration of the Catholic Faith, then we must accept him as a true pope, and
follow what he commands us to do.

A Catholic who is indifferent as to whether he is the pope
or not is no Catholic at all. Rather he has the spirit of schism and of
repudiation of authority.

In the Great Western Schism, in which there were three
claimants to the papal throne, St. Vincent Ferrer condemned those who were
indifferent as to who was the true Pope.

9. Were there any parallel cases in history?

The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D.
espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached
this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him,
would not attend his Masses, and said, "We have an Emperor, but no
bishop." And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the
Church.

While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle
is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of
the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop
Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.

10. Did any Pope ever warn us about a heretic on
the throne of Peter?

Pope Paul IV in 1559, fearful lest a Protestant be elected
to the papal throne, decreed in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio [see Heresy
and loss of authority] that if the person elected the Pope should have
deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election shall
be considered null, legally invalid, and void. He furthermore decreed that such
a person must not be considered the pope, even if he took possession of the
office, was enthroned, and received the veneration and obedience of all the
faithful.

Statement – Dolan and Sanborn are not valid Bishops!

I was reading you article
entitled: A Warning about certain Heretical Traditional Priests and Chapels

You include a Bishop (?) Dolan
and a Bishop (?) Sanborn. These guys

are not valid Bishops since they
were never valid Priests.

George

You are referring to the accusation that Bishop Lienart, who
ordained Archbishop Lefebvre and consecrated him with two other Bishops, was a
Freemason and therefore did not validly confer Orders upon Lefebvre – which
subsequently caused all the priests ordained by Lefebvre to be invalid.

While some may be sincerely confused about this issue, it is
not a tenable position. This is because when a minister uses the correct matter
and form - that is, the traditional rite of ordination - he is presumed to have
intended to do what the Church does. Lienart used the traditional rite of
ordination in ordaining and consecrating Lefebvre.

Pope Leo XIII, ApostolicaeCurae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made
use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the
sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does.
On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the
ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be
employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest
intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of
rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs
to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary
intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and
destructive of the sacrament.”

Suspicion that Lienart was a Freemason is not sufficient to
question his intention, since he used the traditional rite in ordaining
Lefebvre. During the French Revolution the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason.
He ordained many priests. There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any
of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid. Further, it was
discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal
Rampolla, was a high-ranking Freemason. Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but
there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally
re-ordained. If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one
can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.

Here follows a short excerpt with more evidence for the only
true catholic position today: Sedevacantism.

Answers to the Most Common Objections
Against Sedevacantism

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we
bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the
gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the
death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

There
are many objections launched against the sedevacantist position – that is, the
position expounded in this book
according to which the Chair of St. Peter is vacant because the post-Vatican II
“popes” are not true popes, but non-Catholic antipopes. We will now address all
of the major objections that are launched against this position.

Objection 1):
The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ said (Matthew
16). He said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world
(Matthew 28). What you are saying is contrary to the promises of Christ.

Answer:
No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and
that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will,
until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of
the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist
until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively
teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing
as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a
counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a
remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur
in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.

St. Athanasius: "Even if
Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who
are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Further,
it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of
Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council
of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy
Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by
these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter…
because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics
which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262):
“Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread
folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.” (Intro.
To Catena Aurea.)

Notice
that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church.
That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could
never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the
heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have
prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes,
even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius
exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “ By the heart we believe and by the mouth we
confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is
saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church,
The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the
Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and
out of the Church..."

There
is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary
to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the
true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is
presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes. Those who assert
that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church
officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and
would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.

Objection 2):
What’s your authority for making these judgments? Your use of dogmatic
statements is private interpretation.

Answer:
The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the
Church is Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from
the Faith are considered alien to the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9), June 29, 1896: “ The practice of the Church has always been the
same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to
hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD
RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER
AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Moreover,
to assert that adhering to this Catholic dogma is to engage in private
interpretation, as this objection does, is to assert precisely what Pope St.
Pius X condemned in his Syllabus of Errors against the Modernists.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile,
The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmaswhich
the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they
are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind
by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile,
The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54: “The dogmas, the
sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the
reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of
Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ
latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned

Notice,
the idea that dogmas are interpretations is condemned. But that’s exactly what
this objection is asserting, whether those who make it will admit it or not.
They are saying that to apply the truth of a dogma is “private interpretation.”
Further refuting this objection is the fact that, in its Decree on the
Sacrament of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the
dogmatic canons are for the use of all the faithful.

Pope Pius IV, Council of
Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed
well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the
sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in
definite and appropriatecanons in the following manner, so that all, making use
of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to
recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so
many errors.”

The
word “canon” (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a
measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council
of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all”
so that they, making use of these rules of Faith, may be able to
recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness! This very important
statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to
prove points is “private interpretation.” Catholic dogma is the authority of
all who come to these correct conclusions.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#
7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished;
nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards
expression and meaning.”

Objection 3):
You cannot know if someone is a heretic or denounce him as such without a trial
and declaratory sentence.

Answer:
Not so. The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is
merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not
true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless.

Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon
Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or
schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

The
excommunicated person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are
known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be
denounced as such.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei,
Aug. 28, 1794: “ 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is
necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either
excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede,
and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force
than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false,
rash, pernicious,injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

As
we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments
are notnecessary for ipso
facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are
very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of
the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be
obvious to a Catholic; but to illustrate this point, here is what Martin Luther
said before he was formally condemned as a heretic by the pope.

Martin Luther, speaking
before the Bull of Pope Leo X giving him the final sixty days to retract before
a declaration of excommunication was published: “As for me, the die is cast: I
despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be
reconciled with her, orever to hold any communion with her. Let her condemn and
burn my books;I, in turn,unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly
burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.’”

Are we
to believe that the man who uttered this quotation (well before he was formally
condemned as a heretic by a declaratory sentence) was a Catholic or could have
been considered one? If such an idea isn’t patently absurd, then nothing is.
Obviously, Martin Luther was a manifest heretic prior to the formal
declaration, and any Catholic aware of his beliefs could have and should
have denounced him as a manifest heretic once that Catholic encountered his
outrageously heretical views.

That’s
why, prior to the trial of Luther, Cardinal Cajetan “contacted Elector
Frederick, Luther’s sovereign and protector, urging him not to ‘disgrace the
good name of his ancestors’ by supporting a heretic.”

The
same principle applies to a heretic such as John Kerry, the notorious supporter
of abortion. Almost all conservative-minded professing Catholics would
immediately agree that John Kerry is a heretic and not a Catholic, since he
obstinately rejects Catholic teaching against abortion. But they are making
this “judgment” on their own, since no declaratory sentence has ever been
issued against him. They are thus proving the point that a declaration is
not necessary to condemn a heretic. Most heretics in Church history, and almost
all heretics in the world today, have been and must be considered heretics
without any declaration by virtue of their heresy being manifest.

When
the heresy is manifest and clearly obstinate, as in the case of Luther or
Benedict XVI (who says we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics and takes active part
in Synagogue worship), Catholics not only can denounce him as a non-Catholic
without a trial, but must do so. That is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine,
Doctor of the Church, in addressing this precise question, states
unequivocally that the manifest heretic is deposed and must be avoided as a
non-Catholic with no authority before any “excommunication
or judicial sentence.” In this context, St. Robert uses the word
“excommunication” to refer to the ferendae sententiae penalty (the
formal declaration by the pope or judge).

St. Robert Bellarmine, De
Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority
and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipsofacto' [by that very fact]
deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who
orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing
himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any
excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome
writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence
of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves
by their own act from the body of Christ."

Let us
repeat that: WHICH MEANS BEFORE ANY EXCOMMUNICATION OR JUDICIAL SENTENCE! So,
we can see that non-sedevacantists, in arguing that Catholics cannot denounce
manifest heretics such as Benedict XVI since there hasn’t been a formal trial,
have gotten it all wrong. Their conclusion makes a complete mockery out of the
unity of Faith in the Church. In case we have forgotten, there is a unity of
Faith in the Catholic Church (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there
is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be
only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be
considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows
that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the
unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine
Spirit.”

According
to the non-sedevacantists’ conclusion, Catholics would have to affirm communion
with a man who publicly avowed that he wanted no communion with the Catholic
Church, and held that the whole Pontifical law is a swamp of heresies; or a man
who is obstinately pro- abortion, just because no formal declaration was made
against him. To state that Catholics should hold communion with such a manifest
heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to
Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De
Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “…for men are not bound, or able to read hearts;
BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE
HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42